In quest for resolution of issues involving the public at large, many public-spirited individuals or organisations take the Public Interest Litigation route by invoking Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court respectively. The PIL route has seen very limited acceptance by the Courts, with various ingredients required to be satisfied by the parties before it. However, where it was a matter of protection of the environment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has invoked Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) to prevent authorities from taking pleas of insufficient State support, be it financial, regulatory or administrative or simpliciter showing laxity in action.
In B. L. Wadhera Vs. Union of India and Ors.[MANU/SC/0773/1996], the Supreme Court, quoting Krishna Iyer, J., in Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardichan & Ors.[MANU/SC/0171/1980], issued a slew of guidelines to take action to control the waste management system in Delhi and surrounding areas including addressing the issue of lack of budgetary or financial support from the State.
Para 24 of B. L. Wadhera describes how Justice Krishna Iyer, the pioneer of judicial activism, applied Article 47 to the issue of public interest by invoking Directive Principles to mandatory performance by the State.
“24. In Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand, the question before this Court was whether the order of the trial court as upheld by the High Court directing the Ratlam Municipality to draft a plan within six months for the removal of nuisance caused by the open drains and public excretion by the nearby slum dwellers could be sustained. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., dismissed the appeal of the municipality and held as under:
Why drive common people to public interest action? Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression in Do’s and Dont’s the court will not sit idly by and allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. The law will relentlessly be enforced, and the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice. The dynamics of the judicial process has a new ‘enforcement’ dimension not merely through some of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (as here), but also through activated tort consciousness. The officers in charge and even the elected representatives will have to play the penalty of the law if what the Constitution and follow-up legislation direct them to do are defied or denied wrongfully. The wages of violation is punishment, corporate and personal.
Reminding the State Government of its duties under the Constitution of India, Krishna Iyer, J., observed as under:
We are sure that the State Government will make available by way of loans or grants sufficient financial aid to the Ratlam Municipality to enable it to fulfill its obligation under this order. The State will realise that Article 47 makes it a paramount principle of governance that steps are taken ‘for the improvement of public health as amongst its primary duties’. The municipality also will slim its budget on low priority items and elitist projects to use the savings on sanitation and public health. It is not our intention that the ward which has woken up to its rights alone need to be afforded these elementary facilities. We expect all the wards to be benefitted without litigation.”
MANU/SC/0171/1980
Emphasis supplied
The above quoted paragraph from Ratlam Municipality brings out very significant rights that aggrieved parties could ask the Courts to enforce viz.
(A) Responsible officers can be penalised by corporate and personal punishment;
(B) Not just the authorities, but also the elected representatives can be held guilty simply for the fact that he who legislates on the one hand, should not be allowed to prevent its enforcement or partake in deriving benefits from the enforcement; such partaking resulting in failed or deficient enforcement
(C) Municipalities should necessarily prioritise health care and maintenance of the environment rather than allocate budgets to populist and elitist, unnecessary expenditures.
(D) Since health care, sanitation, solid and waste management, clean and pure environment are part of Directive Principles, its enforcement would be a matter of asking and the Courts, by virtue of the decision in Ratlam Municipality would be bound to aid the aggrieved public against the inefficient and corrupt municipalities.
